So, just as the net is reeling from the latest SSL/TLS vulnerability, Logjam, which is in large part due to the export restrictions on cryptographic technology from 20 years ago, politicians are at it again. I wonder how this will end up biting everybody in the arse in the future. Possibly not as directly as in the case of Logjam, but perhaps restricting such tools will mean that certain critical vulnerabilities may not be discovered in time, or not reported.
Even better? It does a heck of a job interrupting my workflow even better. At least the Start Menu covers only a relatively small part of the screen and I can just type what I want without looking at it. I keep looking at whatever I'm working on. Start screen? Blam! In my face. Highly intrusive. Makes me want to strangle whoever came up with it every single time it pops up.
Firefox 4.0 was not a feature release. It was a major release that included changes in the core.
Yet another arbitrary distinction... especially when most people here complain that 4.0 should actually be called 3.7.
You just showed that version numbers aren't just a number but carry meaning with them. Mozilla using them arbitrarily distorts their meaning, and this is what people are complaining about.
They don't carry meaning other than what we assign to them. What I showed is that they broke their own rules before, in a small way, pointing out the inconsistency does not mean that I think those "rules" are important.
Are they doing it arbitrarily now? Nope, just differently. Bugfixes etc: small number, features added and major functionality changes: first number. It's not confusing to me, nor is the old system. And I don't care if a user says he has a problem on 4.3.5 or 7.0.
The only thing that I find annoying about the change in version numbers is the addons needlessly expiring, but that situation already seems to be improving.
How those numbers increase isn't very important, as long as we have an easy way of determining which is which. Their removing the number from the about box does have me worried though.
Now, you have no clue if 7 represents a major change or just a bugfix without actually testing it.
Really? What about 5.0.1 and 4.0.1? Bugfix releases still can and do happen. 7 is a feature release, as were 6, 5 and 4 before it. Perhaps the features added aren't alway major news or huge visible changes, I agree. But at least they're coming available much quicker now and can be refined sooner as well.
Hence, frustration for developers.
As a web developer, I am not frustrated by the jump in version numbers. It is, after all, just a number. If anything, it makes it easier to know when new functionality becomes available, even if it comes in bite-sized chunks, rather than wondering whether a point release is just a collection of bugfixes or actually expands functionality. If anything, I thought that they shouldn't have done the out-of-process plugins in the small numerical step from 3.6.3 to 3.6.4... that alone warranted calling it 3.7, imho.
Depends on what you call "recently". The tax on fuel was already getting long in the tooth slightly before the dawn of time.
Today's fuel prices are â1.682 per litre. That's â6.367 per gallon or $9.07 in fake money.
Don't think for a moment that the price of petrol will drop when this "rekeningrijden" is truly introduced. They'll probably find ways to keep the "wegenbelasting" too, taxing both ownersnip and use based on distance and use fuel consumption.
This is only for things like USB sticks etc. It's not like every CD-ROM that John W. Clueless has ever bought is suddenly going to stop auto-running.
From the original source:
...so this update does not turn off the feature entirely. For example, it does not impact "shiny media" such as CDs or DVDs that contain Autorun files.
I hope you were in kindergarten because you work there...
Interesting that it was the assistant's sister, rather than brother, who was giving the advice.
I agree... It appears most Americans are more easily offended by even mild nudity than by horrible acts of violence. The Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" springs to mind. In this country such a thing would be pretty much completely ignored (maybe a small message on the third-to-last page of the papers).
This behaviour has long puzzled me. We're all born naked. I can understand not wanting (ones kids to) see explicit porn, but nudity does not mean porn per se. I get the feeling Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" would be censored in the US.
On the other hand it seems perfectly ok to show violence in cartoons and games to kids. The dichotomy is what's interesting. Maybe the whole 2nd amendment thing has something to do with it. Personally, I could care less about the effects of nudity and violence, but only if paid to do so. Well, actually, I prefer kids to grow up into people running around (semi-)naked than into people who think violence solves anything.
Didn't they try something like that in 1812 already? Didn't they set fire to the White House? Didn't the Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie make a wonderful song about that?
It makes the drivers even more dangerous. We should put all those people in a destruction derby while they're on the phone. If they're also the people rebelling against wearing a seat belt that'll solve two problems in one go while providing entertainment for the masses.
I suppose you're too young to remember the Windows 95 launch? With that, and to a lesser extent Windows XP, people were queuing up in front of the stores which opened at midnight because people wanted to get it on release day. The hype was so big back then that even people who didn't own a computer (yes, they exist, especially in 1995) bought Windows 95 because it was the thing to have.
I bought Vista separately and am quite happy with it except for a few minor niggles. (I actually have 2 copies of Vista Ultimate, the second one being a freebie which I haven't installed).
Slashdot Mirror
This transliteration scheme is called "bopomofo" after the first 4 sounds (b, p, m and f)
So, just as the net is reeling from the latest SSL/TLS vulnerability, Logjam, which is in large part due to the export restrictions on cryptographic technology from 20 years ago, politicians are at it again. I wonder how this will end up biting everybody in the arse in the future. Possibly not as directly as in the case of Logjam, but perhaps restricting such tools will mean that certain critical vulnerabilities may not be discovered in time, or not reported.
Even better? It does a heck of a job interrupting my workflow even better. At least the Start Menu covers only a relatively small part of the screen and I can just type what I want without looking at it. I keep looking at whatever I'm working on. Start screen? Blam! In my face. Highly intrusive. Makes me want to strangle whoever came up with it every single time it pops up.
Firefox 4.0 was not a feature release. It was a major release that included changes in the core.
Yet another arbitrary distinction... especially when most people here complain that 4.0 should actually be called 3.7.
You just showed that version numbers aren't just a number but carry meaning with them. Mozilla using them arbitrarily distorts their meaning, and this is what people are complaining about.
They don't carry meaning other than what we assign to them. What I showed is that they broke their own rules before, in a small way, pointing out the inconsistency does not mean that I think those "rules" are important. Are they doing it arbitrarily now? Nope, just differently. Bugfixes etc: small number, features added and major functionality changes: first number. It's not confusing to me, nor is the old system. And I don't care if a user says he has a problem on 4.3.5 or 7.0. The only thing that I find annoying about the change in version numbers is the addons needlessly expiring, but that situation already seems to be improving. How those numbers increase isn't very important, as long as we have an easy way of determining which is which. Their removing the number from the about box does have me worried though.
Now, you have no clue if 7 represents a major change or just a bugfix without actually testing it.
Really? What about 5.0.1 and 4.0.1? Bugfix releases still can and do happen. 7 is a feature release, as were 6, 5 and 4 before it. Perhaps the features added aren't alway major news or huge visible changes, I agree. But at least they're coming available much quicker now and can be refined sooner as well.
Hence, frustration for developers.
As a web developer, I am not frustrated by the jump in version numbers. It is, after all, just a number. If anything, it makes it easier to know when new functionality becomes available, even if it comes in bite-sized chunks, rather than wondering whether a point release is just a collection of bugfixes or actually expands functionality. If anything, I thought that they shouldn't have done the out-of-process plugins in the small numerical step from 3.6.3 to 3.6.4... that alone warranted calling it 3.7, imho.
Depends on what you call "recently". The tax on fuel was already getting long in the tooth slightly before the dawn of time. Today's fuel prices are â1.682 per litre. That's â6.367 per gallon or $9.07 in fake money. Don't think for a moment that the price of petrol will drop when this "rekeningrijden" is truly introduced. They'll probably find ways to keep the "wegenbelasting" too, taxing both ownersnip and use based on distance and use fuel consumption.
I'm sure somebody will figure a way to blame it on gay marriage.
I think it has to do with what you feel like when it gets dropped on you.
I for one think this is a sensible thing to do.
What makes you think they're not heterosexuals already? Paedophilia exists regardless of sexual orientation.
Or maybe they're just ahead of their time. This feature is obviously intended for Windows 8 only.
That's just plain Flash though.
I hope you were in kindergarten because you work there... Interesting that it was the assistant's sister, rather than brother, who was giving the advice.
I agree... It appears most Americans are more easily offended by even mild nudity than by horrible acts of violence. The Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" springs to mind. In this country such a thing would be pretty much completely ignored (maybe a small message on the third-to-last page of the papers). This behaviour has long puzzled me. We're all born naked. I can understand not wanting (ones kids to) see explicit porn, but nudity does not mean porn per se. I get the feeling Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" would be censored in the US. On the other hand it seems perfectly ok to show violence in cartoons and games to kids. The dichotomy is what's interesting. Maybe the whole 2nd amendment thing has something to do with it. Personally, I could care less about the effects of nudity and violence, but only if paid to do so. Well, actually, I prefer kids to grow up into people running around (semi-)naked than into people who think violence solves anything.
As in: the kind that causes overflows on 32bit CPUs?
And set up a wiki for that comparison, just to see how much argument is behind it...
Didn't they try something like that in 1812 already? Didn't they set fire to the White House? Didn't the Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie make a wonderful song about that?
People need tech support with that?
It makes the drivers even more dangerous. We should put all those people in a destruction derby while they're on the phone. If they're also the people rebelling against wearing a seat belt that'll solve two problems in one go while providing entertainment for the masses.
Free of intelligence? Free of math skills?
What would a "spectacular collision" between those two be? Whatever it is, it can't be good for us.
I guess that makes you James Franco then. Can I have your autograph?
Oh dear. Your poor wife.
I suppose you're too young to remember the Windows 95 launch? With that, and to a lesser extent Windows XP, people were queuing up in front of the stores which opened at midnight because people wanted to get it on release day. The hype was so big back then that even people who didn't own a computer (yes, they exist, especially in 1995) bought Windows 95 because it was the thing to have. I bought Vista separately and am quite happy with it except for a few minor niggles. (I actually have 2 copies of Vista Ultimate, the second one being a freebie which I haven't installed).
Wow! Little Billy has a Scanning/Tunnelling Microscope?